While Americans suffer in a recession we are giving illegals financial aid! (visas, law)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They won't leave voluntarily. Economics don't work like that. If there is a market, the demand will be met. They come here for jobs, not for incentives. If they leave a certain sector the economy (the formal business sector, like Walmart, Target, etc.), they'll enter to another sector (under the table work, like day laborers, or simply not on the books). Since labor costs are higher here than in Mexico, that alone causes an incentive to come here. That is witnessed by the fact that illegal immigrants actually use less benefits (in 2002 an illegal immigrant household used 46% less federal benefits than an American one). However low wages and lower instances of tax collect mean a deficit.
Illegal high school dropouts in 1997 were a net drain of $89,000 in a lifetime. An illegal immigrant with some college added $105,000 in a lifetime to society. These are 1997 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the dollar amount is higher. Which makes more sense economically?
Geesh, the jobs are a part of the incentives that I talked about that need to be removed. Don't you retain what you read in here? I said that e-verify needs to be implemented across the board and that way most employers will not hire illegal aliens. You just keep repeating yourself over and over even though everything you have said has been refuted.
If illegal aliens use less benefits than Americans it may because there are around 290,000 million citizens and legal immigrants compared to the bottom line of 10-12 million illegal aliens. The point is that no benefits should be going to illegal aliens at all! The cost of birthing their babies and the welfare handouts they get for them are astronomical and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
"An illegal immigrant with some college added $105,000 in a lifetime to society. These are 1997 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the dollar amount is higher. Which makes more sense economically"?
That would also be true if these funds were used to give our own a college education! I don't argue from an economic standpoint for the most part anyway. It is about the rule of law and our right to have and to enforce our immigration laws, period! What part of that don't you get?
Geesh, the jobs are a part of the incentives that I talked about that need to be removed. Don't you retain what you read in here? I said that e-verify needs to be implemented across the board and that way most employers will not hire illegal aliens. You just keep repeating yourself over and over even though everything you have said has been refuted.
If illegal aliens use less benefits than Americans it may because there are around 290,000 million citizens and legal immigrants compared to the bottom line of 10-12 million illegal aliens. The point is that no benefits should be going to illegal aliens at all! The cost of birthing their babies and the welfare handouts they get for them are astronomical and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
"An illegal immigrant with some college added $105,000 in a lifetime to society. These are 1997 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the dollar amount is higher. Which makes more sense economically"?
That would also be true if these funds were used to give our own a college education! I don't argue from an economic standpoint for the most part anyway. It is about the rule of law and our right to have and to enforce our immigration laws, period! What part of that don't you get?
I am done with you. This is going nowhere.
Wow, you're a little mad over nothing. First off I can only go by your arguments. You don't really seem to understand economics. Also you're comprehension of the argument is a little, uninformed. You present false dichotomies and act as those are only two possibilities (both of which don't reflect reality). Typically, this is a sign of extremist behavior.
So I will once again to explain some basic economic theories. If there is a demand, that demand will always be met. That's a basic economic principle. If people want something they will get it. In this case people want jobs (illegal immigrants) and cheap, knowledgeable labor (employers). Assuming that the market is not a closed system, there are alternatives to the formal market. The biggest being informal markets (being paid under the table). E-verify, its faults notwithstanding, will further push people to be paid under the table. We see this in Arizona where increasingly employers (seeking cheap labor) employ illegal immigrants (those that are seeking jobs). One way to remedy the situation is to acknowledge the market. That's the crux of the problem. Nobody is acknowledging market forces. Many view it as you, a black and white dichotomous situation. When you frame it as a problem with policies forcing people to alternative markets, you get an entirely different perspective.
I'm trying to think of the name of the study. Essentially it stated that 40-50% of illegal immigrants in Los Angeles were in this non-normative sector of the market (being paid under the table). That's a huge problem financially and socially. It decreases tax revenue and can increase the potential for exploitation (not only in the particular job, but also on an industry wide level. This could have the potential to affect lower level service jobs. We've seen this with Walmart paying below the industry standard, partly due to having people not on the books).
Jobs for illegal immigrants will be there. If there is a will, there is a way to appease the market.
You've not refuted anything. Shouting more doesn't constitute refutation. It's exactly that, shouting more. I've addressed every point. Your main thesis is essentially they are illegal. I've given historical precedence of laws being changed. I've laid out economic data. I've basically went point by point. I'm not the one who hasn't brought data, but rather you haven't done it. Your displayed red herring fallacies, ad populum fallacies, strawman arguments, but nothing to substantially make your point.
I've demonstrated that they use 46% less welfare. PER HOUSEHOLD. So your argument that there is less people doesn't make sense. It's a per capita (if you will) number. Total number mathematically has nothing to with it.
As for your last point, it really doesn't make sense. Funding college isn't the same as tax revenue. A college education, funded wholly by the government, still nets a positive due to increased tax revenue and increased disposable income. So your logic is completely flawed.
You're main thesis is that laws are unchangeable (immutable if you will). Obviously that's not true. When a situation arises, our system is supposed to change with the situation. That includes having a national dialogue with both sides. I agree with some of your ideas and concerns. However, I don't think its a good idea when policy makers use emotion as a justification for laws. That's essentially your argument. It's an emotional appeal. In our highly partisan environment, I think that this should be changed.
We have a young lawyer in our firm, a little older than you. His dad is one of the two people whose name is on the door. He has a big role in our county's Democrat group. A couple of years ago he talked about illegal immigration like you do--they have a right to be here, it's a right to be educated, etc.
We were all in a big meeting with other partners and his dad, and before the meeting started he was talking about the rights of illegals again. One of our partners looked at him, with his dad in the room, and just simply said, "you haven't been in the work force long enough." His dad said, "that's exactly right."
This is not a slam to you, and please don't take it that way. You just don't know what you don't know.
[quote=Califreeman;15838578]I'm 24. I graduated in 2008. Education isn't a privilege it is a right. It's actually one of the human rights established by the US and UN.
No, I started a thread where I wouldn't argue a point. I stated up front I would not argue my points on said THREAD. I never stated I was for or against illegal immigration.
Ad hominem attacks don't mean that I haven't done research on the subject.
If we were to implement a system, I would like it to keep those that are contributing to society and deport those aren't. If you graduate from university, can prove you have been paying taxes for a certain length of time, or have provided military service...then you should be on a track towards obtaining a visa (or citizenship if in the military, since illegal immigrants can't join, if I'm not mistaken). I think that there should be a penalty for initially coming illegally. If you commit 3 misdemeanors or 1 felony then I think that should mean the typical sentencing plus deportation. I think that there should be some sort of punitive action towards illegal immigration.
This is rather hard to do don't you think? How can you prove you've been paying all taxes? Wouldn't that mean you have a job paying above the min to actually pay taxes? Don't you have to have some type of documentation to get that job in the first place? It sounds to me that this example would be someone using false documents to get that job and by default "isn't someone contributing". You don't think identity theft would be contributing do you? I would hope not.
Existing federal law requires that a state may provide that an
alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible
for any state or local public benefit for which that alien would
otherwise be ineligible under a specified federal law only through
enactment of a state law that affirmatively provides for that
eligibility.
So, basically, it is OK for states to break and ignore federal laws (California) ... but not OK for them to want to enforce them and utilize them (Arizona)?
Something isn't right and is unfair here. Are they (state governments, sanctuary cities and states, Washington) really pulling this stuff on us regularly? I think so.
So I will once again to explain some basic economic theories. If there is a demand, that demand will always be met. That's a basic economic principle. If people want something they will get it. In this case people want jobs (illegal immigrants) and cheap, knowledgeable labor (employers). Assuming that the market is not a closed system, there are alternatives to the formal market. The biggest being informal markets (being paid under the table). E-verify, its faults notwithstanding, will further push people to be paid under the table. We see this in Arizona where increasingly employers (seeking cheap labor) employ illegal immigrants (those that are seeking jobs). One way to remedy the situation is to acknowledge the market. That's the crux of the problem. Nobody is acknowledging market forces. Many view it as you, a black and white dichotomous situation. When you frame it as a problem with policies forcing people to alternative markets, you get an entirely different perspective.
Jobs for illegal immigrants will be there. If there is a will, there is a way to appease the market.
I've demonstrated that they use 46% less welfare. PER HOUSEHOLD. So your argument that there is less people doesn't make sense. It's a per capita (if you will) number. Total number mathematically has nothing to with it.
You're main thesis is that laws are unchangeable (immutable if you will). Obviously that's not true. When a situation arises, our system is supposed to change with the situation. That includes having a national dialogue with both sides. I agree with some of your ideas and concerns. However, I don't think its a good idea when policy makers use emotion as a justification for laws. That's essentially your argument. It's an emotional appeal. In our highly partisan environment, I think that this should be changed.
If there is no supply (illegals), the demand will eventually wane. That’s a basic reality principle. If our laws are stringently enforced, illegal employment will be a virtual impossibility. If illegals cannot work, and are denied government handouts, they will either remain here in destitution and ultimately meet their demise, or return home to their former wages. Of course a large percentage will remain and simply continue to live off the “citizens” they irresponsibly produce.
Even if, as you claim, illegals use 46% less welfare, you are ignoring the fact that they shouldn’t be entitled to any. Welfare benefits are intended to temporarily assist needy citizens, not to provide an incentive for illegals to procreate, or to subsidize their lawless lifestyles.
Our system is not designed to simply “change with the situation,” particularly, when the situation involves the fleecing of taxpayers by foreign interlopers and miscreants. We do not need to modify our laws to accommodate criminals. That’s NOT how it works.
Wow, you're a little mad over nothing. First off I can only go by your arguments. You don't really seem to understand economics. Also you're comprehension of the argument is a little, uninformed. You present false dichotomies and act as those are only two possibilities (both of which don't reflect reality). Typically, this is a sign of extremist behavior.
So I will once again to explain some basic economic theories. If there is a demand, that demand will always be met. That's a basic economic principle. If people want something they will get it. In this case people want jobs (illegal immigrants) and cheap, knowledgeable labor (employers). Assuming that the market is not a closed system, there are alternatives to the formal market. The biggest being informal markets (being paid under the table). E-verify, its faults notwithstanding, will further push people to be paid under the table. We see this in Arizona where increasingly employers (seeking cheap labor) employ illegal immigrants (those that are seeking jobs). One way to remedy the situation is to acknowledge the market. That's the crux of the problem. Nobody is acknowledging market forces. Many view it as you, a black and white dichotomous situation. When you frame it as a problem with policies forcing people to alternative markets, you get an entirely different perspective.
I'm trying to think of the name of the study. Essentially it stated that 40-50% of illegal immigrants in Los Angeles were in this non-normative sector of the market (being paid under the table). That's a huge problem financially and socially. It decreases tax revenue and can increase the potential for exploitation (not only in the particular job, but also on an industry wide level. This could have the potential to affect lower level service jobs. We've seen this with Walmart paying below the industry standard, partly due to having people not on the books).
Jobs for illegal immigrants will be there. If there is a will, there is a way to appease the market.
You've not refuted anything. Shouting more doesn't constitute refutation. It's exactly that, shouting more. I've addressed every point. Your main thesis is essentially they are illegal. I've given historical precedence of laws being changed. I've laid out economic data. I've basically went point by point. I'm not the one who hasn't brought data, but rather you haven't done it. Your displayed red herring fallacies, ad populum fallacies, strawman arguments, but nothing to substantially make your point.
I've demonstrated that they use 46% less welfare. PER HOUSEHOLD. So your argument that there is less people doesn't make sense. It's a per capita (if you will) number. Total number mathematically has nothing to with it.
As for your last point, it really doesn't make sense. Funding college isn't the same as tax revenue. A college education, funded wholly by the government, still nets a positive due to increased tax revenue and increased disposable income. So your logic is completely flawed.
You're main thesis is that laws are unchangeable (immutable if you will). Obviously that's not true. When a situation arises, our system is supposed to change with the situation. That includes having a national dialogue with both sides. I agree with some of your ideas and concerns. However, I don't think its a good idea when policy makers use emotion as a justification for laws. That's essentially your argument. It's an emotional appeal. In our highly partisan environment, I think that this should be changed.
Wow, so at what point do you think the tax payers should be given some relief from the mandatory free education they are going to shell out for Illegal Aliens? 2 yr degree, 4 year, Doctorate? What's the cost, per year, for the average University? I'm going to guess 25 grand per year and let's just roll with the 4 year plan.
Ok, now that we've established a baseline of 25,000 and a min of 4 years how do you sell this min of 100,000 to people already making 7 dollars an hour that are US Citizens and will be helping to pay for it? Surely you don't think the 7 bucks an hour crowd should be responsible for your mandatory, free 4 year program do you?
Good luck selling your 100,000 dollar mandatory, free College program for Illegal Aliens paid for by US tax payers (including those making 7 dollars an hour). Even if you bumped up the min for those paying for your free program it's going to be a hard sell for those that see it as a tax and not an education.
If you can dupe the majority of Americans into paying for your mandatory, 100,000 dollar free upper education program for Illegal Aliens then you should run for President. We can have another discussion that includes US poor too but the budget deficit would probably be frightening. Just think of the new taxes we'll get out of this new program.
They won't leave voluntarily. Economics don't work like that. If there is a market, the demand will be met. They come here for jobs, not for incentives. If they leave a certain sector the economy (the formal business sector, like Walmart, Target, etc.), they'll enter to another sector (under the table work, like day laborers, or simply not on the books). Since labor costs are higher here than in Mexico, that alone causes an incentive to come here. That is witnessed by the fact that illegal immigrants actually use less benefits (in 2002 an illegal immigrant household used 46% less federal benefits than an American one). However low wages and lower instances of tax collect mean a deficit.
Illegal high school dropouts in 1997 were a net drain of $89,000 in a lifetime. An illegal immigrant with some college added $105,000 in a lifetime to society. These are 1997 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the dollar amount is higher. Which makes more sense economically?
Not even illegals are smart enough to figure out how to support their very large families on less than minimum wages.
They come for the work AND the welfare handouts. Most could not make it with our very high costs of living, our high health care costs and food costs if they were living on just what they're willing to earn.
If an illegal working for $5 or $6 an hour has 7 or 8 kids, and very many do, or the illegal here having a baby at age 16 with no education nor job skills, they are getting government handouts right and left.
The fact is, American level wages are difficult enough for many Americans who have education and job skills. What's happening is that millions of illegals are brought in who have no ability to even learn English and have no education. They will require much government help.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First you say you lo
